|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 112 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 75 of 112:
| 
Feb 20 20:06 UTC 2006 |
you willing to foot the bill there rcurl? So you want to have a national
emergency department with 100,000 on staff doing nothing until a disaster
strikes and then moving in to take over from the locals?
What we do is fill such positions in an emergency with military personell on
a temporary basis. But they do not have the training to handle such missions
as a primary skill set. There job is actually just the opposite, to kill
people and break things, not save people and fix things.
and each situation is different, even unique. The streets in baltimore are
diferent than the streets in New Orlians are different from the streets in
Ann Arbor. Even the basic services are different in each city. The FEDERAL
government cannot know these things. They cannot spend their time learning
them to lay out a plan. It i up to LOCAL government to know these things.
Thats why all the FEDERAL government can do is back up the LOCAL government.
Thats why in an emergency, where martial law is declared, the person in charge
is slated to be the LOCAL SHERIFF. He is supposed to know where to allocate
the incoming support resources.
The Federal Governemtn does do a good job if storing and transporting supploes
where they are needed, the problem comes in the method of distribution.
The biggest problem comes from our modern society...COMMUNICATION. Think
about what would have happened if Some disaster would have happened to detroit
100 years ago.
Who would have known first?
How would the Federal Government have responded?
What would the locals have done?
Where would the refugees have gone?
When would we have known?
Would the Federal Government come in and save everyone?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 76 of 112:
|
Feb 20 20:16 UTC 2006 |
re #75: where is the local sherriff supposed to find resources to
provide temporary housing for 500,000 people? how's he supposed to
arrange supply convoys while whatever force remains to him is trying
to maintain some semblance of law and order?
Nobody (well, nobody worth listening to) thinks that local and state
operations don't have a large role to play in disaster response but
you're deliberately presenting a false dichotomy (between "the feds
can't do it all" and "the feds therefore have no responsibility.")
|
cyklone
|
|
response 77 of 112:
|
Feb 20 20:29 UTC 2006 |
Not to mention the ever-worshipped by conservatives private sector has learned
how to move goods and services around the country (and the world) on an
as-needed basis. I don't think the learning curve would be all that great if
the feds decided to take their responsibilities seriously and learn a bit more
about the knowledge that already exists.
|
crimson
|
|
response 78 of 112:
|
Feb 20 21:45 UTC 2006 |
Re #77: You're begging the question. What's under discussion here is whether
"their responsibilities" is a reasonable description. I seem to recall hearing
on NPR in the week or so following Katrina that the city of New Orleans (or
perhaps the state) had a detailed plan, which was not followed in the least
description. In any case, because the federal government has such a large
area that it is responsible to some degree for, and several areas that it is
intensively responsible for (such as the national parks and Washington, D.C.),
intensive responsiblity clearly lies with the state and local governments.
(That last sentence was all general theory; if the federal government decided
beforehand to take more responsibility than necessary, then it still bears
the responsibility for its failure after the fact.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 79 of 112:
|
Feb 20 22:30 UTC 2006 |
re #78: In your opinion, then, what *is* the responsibility of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, if not to respond to emergencies?
Whatever it is that you believe them to be responsible for, do you
believe they did a reasonable job of it in the case of Hurricane Katrina?
When they have been called upon in the past to respond to similar
emergencies (e.g. Hurricane Hugo) did they do a better or worse job?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 80 of 112:
|
Feb 20 23:55 UTC 2006 |
Re #78: I was respinding to bap, who said "The Federal Governemtn does do
a good job if storing and transporting supploes where they are needed, the
problem comes in the method of distribution."
My point, which you seemed to have missed, is that if an epidemic breaks
our, or a terrorist attack requiring a massive logistical response occurs,
Katrina has proven the Federal government is incapable of responding. I
not at all pleased to hear bap making excuses for why American citizens
should not expect the feds to deliver crucial medicine and other supplies
that may be needed.
|
tod
|
|
response 81 of 112:
|
Feb 21 03:12 UTC 2006 |
re #75
Local sheriff? Dude, you're smoking too much crack
Incident commander is whoever happens to show up first on the scene. Its
always been that way. As for emergency preparedness, it is supposed to be
a joint effort between municipal, state, and federal agencies.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 82 of 112:
|
Feb 21 03:24 UTC 2006 |
The initial incident commander is whoever shows up, Todd. But after
that, especially if it is a major event, incident command will move to
whatever jurisdiction has responsibility. For example, you wouldn't have
a police officer coordinate a major building fire, nor would you have
the fire department search for a missing plane.
|
tod
|
|
response 83 of 112:
|
Feb 21 03:32 UTC 2006 |
re #82
I wouldn't have a Sheriff stick his nose into the operations of the county
emergency management division, neither. NOLA was fucked up by FEMA, hands
down. Municipal and state called for emergency and FEMA responded a day late
and a dollar short.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 84 of 112:
|
Feb 21 03:42 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
crimson
|
|
response 85 of 112:
|
Feb 21 05:09 UTC 2006 |
Re #79: The federal responsibility IMO is to coordinate interstate responses,
and to provide a very limited level of direct support. It seems like you're
expecting them to provide a lot of support, but if multiple disasters occur
they're involved in all of them, while each local level is only involved with
itself.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 86 of 112:
|
Feb 21 13:26 UTC 2006 |
You didn't answer mcnally's last two questions.
|
other
|
|
response 87 of 112:
|
Feb 21 16:36 UTC 2006 |
There are supposed to be plans in place with a coordinator at the county
level. The emergency response coordinator in Cook County, IL is a
dental hygienist. (This was mentioned in a seminar on emergency
preparedness for dental professionals that I shot.)
There is a huge amount of inter-jurisdictional coordination and
decision-making involved in appropriate emergency planning. We can
argue all we want about what went wrong after Katrina and who was
responsible, but I dare say that none of us is adquately informed to
really know the compound complexities of the failure.
We do know that there was corruption and graft at the local level which
prevented resources from being allocated in advance and people being
properly trained and instructed regarding their roles and functions in
such circumstances, and we also know that there was a massive failure at
the highest federal levels to both understand the scale of the problem
and to respond in a timely manner with appropriate resources.
What we don't know is what interations were supposed to happen and
between which persons and in which capacities. We don't know what
resources were supposed to be where and when, and how they were supposed
to get there. We _can_ see that at least some people who were supposed
to know these things also didn't know them, and that is a compound
failing at both local and federal levels.
To claim that this was either and exclusively federal or exclusively
local (and/or state) failing is evidence only of the partisanship of the
claimant. However, to suggest that local and state authorities should
be largely responsible for dealing with a disaster covering an area
running across four states is just as unrealistic as suggesitng that the
federal government should be responsible for managing a disaster
constrained to four city blocks in an urban center. The response in
both cases depends on coordination between officials operating outside
their normal functions, capacities and even lines of communication.
This is why emergency planning and response professionals exist, and why
they should be employed at every level of government in position that
have at times been filled by political patronage.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 88 of 112:
|
Feb 21 16:52 UTC 2006 |
Well said. Even potential disasters that would be pretty well resticted to
one state, such as earthquakes in California, have enormous national
repercusions, and for that reason deserve enormous national attention.
They cannot be solely, or even primrily, the responsibility of the State.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 89 of 112:
|
Feb 21 17:12 UTC 2006 |
Well, we can't have it both ways. If the Federal Government has the
responsibility to respond to disasters, then they have the authority to
step in and say "local emergency manager is relieved, we're taking
over". I have no problem with this, do you?
|
tod
|
|
response 90 of 112:
|
Feb 21 17:13 UTC 2006 |
re #87
I dare say that none of us is adquately informed to
really know the compound complexities of the failure.
Reservists on standby as they have always been during major hurricane disaster
threats when the state of emergency calls go out from state levels?
FEMA/DHS's response: MAJOR lag time (24 hours +)
Timeline of FEMA: very obvious Brown was out to lunch for the
first 24 hours. Lousiana's reserves requested 700 buses and received 100..
Why is that? Federal easily could have brought in 7ton or 5ton trucks(which
happened eventually) to substitute as buses.
Here's a clip:
"in Washington, D.C., that Sunday morning, Michael Chertoff, the US secretary
of homeland security, and Michael D. Brown, director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, were receiving electronic briefings from the National
Weather Service on the possibility of a levee break in the city. Despite the
catastrophic implications, it would take more than a day for Brown to move
to bring FEMA personnel into the region."
"Every forecast from the National Hurricane Center, beginning 56 hours before
the storm struck, had predicted that the hurricane would come ashore at
Category 4 intensity or greater and that it would then pass over or near New
Orleans and the Louisiana-Mississippi border."
There were no compound complexities. Hurricanes are nothing new. FEMA
has responded in the past with haste. This time its big news because FEMA
dropped the ball and people died in horror.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 112:
|
Feb 21 18:00 UTC 2006 |
Re #89: you *must* have it both ways. There are local resources and
authorities to coordinate with national resources and authorities. It is a
question of balancing these for the most timely and effective response.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 92 of 112:
|
Feb 21 18:32 UTC 2006 |
Both ways meant that the local authorities maintained control over
federal resources. Which would not work.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 112:
|
Feb 21 18:51 UTC 2006 |
Not at all. Local authorities can allocate resources provided by federal
sources, or request direct assistance from federal sources. You persist in
making everything only A or B but not A and B, or A given B. That does not
optimize the allocation of resources and authority between national and local
responsibilities.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 94 of 112:
|
Feb 21 18:54 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 95 of 112:
|
Feb 21 18:55 UTC 2006 |
Thats fine. You can say the local auhorities, while not able to fully
sustain the recovery effort of the disaster, are still the ones who
manage it. But you can't at the same time blame the Federal government
for not sending in help, when the local authorities told them to hold off.
|
tod
|
|
response 96 of 112:
|
Feb 21 19:08 UTC 2006 |
700 buses were requested. When did they show up?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 97 of 112:
|
Feb 21 19:12 UTC 2006 |
The response to Katrina was mismanaged by both the federal and state
governments. That does not mean that they SHOULD NOT have managed the
response collectively under established guidelines for the resources and
mechanisms provided by each.
|
tod
|
|
response 98 of 112:
|
Feb 21 19:22 UTC 2006 |
Agreed
|
bru
|
|
response 99 of 112:
|
Feb 21 20:23 UTC 2006 |
they were also mismanaged by the city, who Failed to follow their own
edtablished emergency plan. Yhings like not assigning drivers to the several
hundred school buses and city buses left to get flooded, not co-ordinating
with the neighboring Parish Sheriff to allow refugees to walk out across the
bridge, ordering the entire police force OUT of the city leaving the citizens
to fend for themselves,...etc.
And the federal government Failed in several key areas to co-ordinate with
the local authotities. They failed to allow the Red Cross to move in with
food, water, adn emergency supplies for 48 hours while they tried to gain
control of a lawless city. Mostly, they failed to have the facilities to
communicate with the various agencies, to make the various radios communicate
with each other. They still have not leaarned the lessons of 9/11.
But there were sucesses as well. Read the article in this months Popular
mechanics about the massive federal response that saved thousands from
rooftops, the hundreds of boats that were brought in and saved people stranded
in their homes.
Now, why have the OTHER states devestated by Katrina NOT failed in their
emergency plan? Because they FOLLOWED their emergency plan. They lost
property and people as well, though not in as confined an area. The LOCAL
people responded and helped their neighbors.
Once again, make sure YOU have teh facilities to help yourself should an
emergency hit yoou in your neighborhood.
|